>> But, concerning "RIF-BLD document formula": it is used in some places
>> (even "RIF-BLD document" is used), but there is no definition.
>
> I now added "RIF-BLD" in front of "document formula" in the definition.
>
>> I would suggest to include this definition where "document formula" is
>> defined (i.e., section 2.4), or even add an additional section.
>> on that note, when strictly reading the definitions, annotations do not
>> seem to be part of document formulas. So, I would recommend to define
>> documents after defining annotations, and taking the annotations into
>> account in the definition.
>
> I now added a definition of "RIF-BLD document" as a "RIF-BLD document formula"
> with or without an annotation. This is in the short section about annotations.
Thanks! I added an anchor so that I can refer to it.
>
>> Actually, in order to allow annotations in front of arbitrary sub
>> formulas, annotations should be included in the definition of a formula.
>> For example, one bullet in the Definition (Well-formed formula) could be:
>> * ''Annotated formula'': If psi is a well-formed formula, then (* id phi
>> *) psi also a well-formed formula.
>
> I added a clarifying clause that annotations are allowed for subformulas and
> subterms. However, I did not add annotated formulas among the bullets in the
> main definition, since it would complicate things. This is because, I assume,
> we do not want annotations to be added to already annotated terms and formulas.
> So, the nice recursive nature of the definitions would have to be spoiled with
> qualifications.
I see your point. I guess it is fine the way it is now.
Another thing: I see that you addressed the ambiguity I was complaining
about earlier [1].
I still have one potential concern here: the convention you describe
should avoid ambiguity. However, it seems that this precludes writing
annotations about particular terms (and maybe also formulas):
how do I write an annotation about t in t[w -> v]?
I guess this could be done using parentheses. Perhaps it is worthwhile
mentioning that in the text.
Best, Jos
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rif-wg/2008Jun/0189.html
>
>
> --michael
>
>
>> Thus, Jos
>>
>>>
>>> --michael
--
Jos de Bruijn debruijn@inf.unibz.it
+390471016224 http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
If knowledge can create problems, it is not
through ignorance that we can solve them.
- Isaac Asimov